Guerrero v. Bleum et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING Action, Without Prejudice, for Failure to Prosecute 13 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/25/15. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
LUIS MARIO GUERRERO,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

BRYON BLEUM, et al.,

13

Case No. 1:14-cv-10948-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(Doc. 13)

Defendants.

14
15

_____________________________________/
16
Plaintiff Luis Mario Guerrero (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

1
18 pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 20, 2014. On

19 January 21, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file a
20 second amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The deadline was February
2
21 23, 2015, and Plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise responded to the order.

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that

22

23 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los
24 Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff identified himself alternatively as Luis Mario Guerrero, Luis Mario Guerrero Angulo, and Luis Mario
Angulo Vaes.
2

On February 20, 2015, the United States Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable. A notation on the
envelope indicates Plaintiff has been discharged on parole. However, Plaintiff has not notified the Court of any
change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f).

1 failure to comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in
2 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
3 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and
4 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”

In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products

5 Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
6 These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in
7 order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).
8

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the order, this action

9 shall be dismissed. Id. This action can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and
10 compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s
11 docket, unprosecuted. Id. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED for failure to
12 prosecute, without prejudice.
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 25, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2